Is the NFL rigged??

[DC Tom]

Any discussion about the NFL being rigged isn't complete without the observation that, after September of 2001, after going 1-2 (and 5-11 the previous season) and losing their starting QB, the PATRIOTS go 10-3 with their backup QB, get the unheard-of "Tuck Rule" called in their favor, and win the Superbowl.

[Mr. WEO]

Any discussion about the NFL being rigged isn't complete without the observation that, after September of 2001, after going 1-2 (and 5-11 the previous season) and losing their starting QB, the PATRIOTS go 10-3 with their backup QB, get the unheard-of "Tuck Rule" called in their favor, and win the Superbowl.

 

Why did the NFL decide at that very moment to rig games for NE? Kraft had owned that team for several years. How did the league know about Brady?

Edited November 17, 2014 by Mr. WEO

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

 

 

Bill Brasky = Chris Collinsworth, apparently. I'm watching the game with the sound down, so I'm not hearing any of Al & CC's blather. But after your post, I just ran my DVR back and watched it again, and I turned on the sound. So now I see where YOU got your opinion from. LOL

 

Just because the DB "got his head around", that means NOTHING. He forcibly used his right arm to hold and/or impede the WR from getting to the ball. Defensive PI is called all day long for FAR LESS than what was done on this play.

 

Personally, the inconsistency of PI and Holding calls have bothered me for years, and I think it does give the NFL a WWF similarity. And the favortism given certain teams/players is very obvious...and it stinks.

 

There's the real problem for the nfl. Inconsistency. They changed the rules to encourage more offensive production...and added a whole lot of subjectivity to it. The announcers drive me crazy with replays as you watch the penalty in high def for the second time.

 

"Got his head around" and ---- like that drives me crazy. Gilmore play the other night...he was facing forward coming to the play so he doesn't get the benefit of a guy who "got his head around"?

 

The funny part is that I'm not watching the game, but I've seen the play. Many times, in fact.

Edited November 17, 2014 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Bill Brasky]

Gilmore got jobbed, I'll grant you that. Arrington was in front of Wayne fighting for the ball. That's how it should be called/not called.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Gilmore got jobbed, I'll grant you that. Arrington was in front of Wayne fighting for the ball. That's how it should be called/not called.

 

Is it?

[Bill Brasky]

Absolutely. I have no problem with that provided it's called like that for both teams.

[DC Tom]

Why did the NFL decide at that very moment to rig games for NE? Kraft had owned that team for several years. How did the league know about Brady?

 

For the PATRIOTS, after 9/11?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

I'm not sure which games I'm watching while you're watching yours. By and large the most common complaint I hear from fans of all teams is poor quality of officiating. I don't see consistency at all.

[Mr. WEO]

For the PATRIOTS, after 9/11?

 

lol

[MattM]

 

 

Every one of your denials that you believe that the refs are making calls in favor of big market teams is followed by another claim as to why they would be doing it.

 

Anyway....you running into some Packers fans here and there doesn't make them a national team. They are a successful team. People who are not fans like to watch their team (or any team) play against successful teams. They aren;t successful because they get a few calls their way by the refs.

 

The TV contracts are set--no variability due to increased viewership. It wouldn' make sense for either party to want that in the contracts. The networks do not want to pay more than they already are if ratings go up and the NFL doesn't want to get paid less is the ratings go down.

 

Unlike every other major pro sport in the US, pro football fans in this country will watch any nationally televised game. Every week, the Sunday Night Football game is the number 1 network broadcast for 18-49 year olds. MNF is the top cable broadcast every week. This is true no matter who is playing (crappy Cleveland vs Cincy pulled a 5.2 share and finished as the 3rd ranked cable broadcast that week).

 

Check out the teams in the top 10 markets. How's it going for the teams in NJ lately? Chicago? Atlanta? DC? Houston? Market size means little in the NFL. It's one giant pot of fans they are taking from. The SB get huge ratings no matter who plays--the NFL doens't care who's in there becasue they know it doens't matter. Smaller market Seattle versus medium market Denver was the most watched TV show of all time! Is that because of all of those Denver and Seahawks fans all over the country? Of course not! The year before it was large market SF vs small market Baltimore. Huge ratings-because people love football and the SB. Go back and pick any SB matchup: Rams/Tennessee?--a 43.3 rating. Carolina/NE?--41.4 rating. Atlanta/Denver?--40.2. Arizona/Steelers?--42. Even the Bills 4th loss in a row vs. Dallas--a whopping 45.5 (the highest rated of all the Bills SBs!). The NFL knows it doesn't matter who is int he SB--it's a massive money maker for everyone. They aren't going to mess with that.

 

 

There is nothing the networks can do to influence who plays in the SB. There is nothing the league can do either--unless you believe this conspiracy theory. But since you claim you do not believe it, just come out and say that there is no league-wide effort to influence which teams win games.

 

For the 12th time, I personally don't believe that there's a League conspiracy against small mkt teams--it would be too hard to keep quiet. That said, I'm simply answering questions of people denying that it would be in the League's best money-making interest for big market teams to dominate. Of course it would make more $ for the League if bigger market teams/teams with national fan bases were perennial winners. That's just common sense. The League will do relatively well no matter who is winning, it's so popular, but it will do better if certain teams in bigger cities (with richer citizens) or with already established fan bases are winners.

 

On the Packer piece, you're just plain wrong--here's the proof:

 

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/1506/Default.aspx

 

Third most popular team in 2014 and perennial top ten in the last 20 years or so and top 3 most of the last decade.

 

And from looking back at SB ratings history over the last 20 years or so, I'd say that it is in fact generally worth more to the League to have said major teams in the game--especially the Cowboys--vs upstart winners in smaller cities.

Edited November 17, 2014 by MattM

[Alphadawg7]

Any discussion about the NFL being rigged isn't complete without the observation that, after September of 2001, after going 1-2 (and 5-11 the previous season) and losing their starting QB, the PATRIOTS go 10-3 with their backup QB, get the unheard-of "Tuck Rule" called in their favor, and win the Superbowl.

 

Oh yes I see it now...NFL paid the Jets to hurt Bledsoe so the 6th round pick waiting in the wings could take over and take the team to the SB and avenge the Twin Towers. They also used the Governments weather manipulator to make it snow during the Raider game being they were a CA team so that NE would have an advantage in the snow. They also paid the refs extra money to call the "tuck" scenario BY THE BOOK as it was called and been proven dozens of times. They also secretly gave Vinateri steroids so he could pretty much win every game for NE those playoffs, including a clutch kick in the snow.

 

Now it all makes sense...thanks for clearing the picture up.

 

PS: That backup might just be the best QB to ever play, and is definitely top 5. But I guess that had nothing to do with the Patriots turn around...it was all the NFL and its 9/11 agenda

Edited November 17, 2014 by Alphadawg7

[DC Tom]

Oh yes I see it now...NFL paid the Jets to hurt Bledsoe so the 6th round pick waiting in the wings could take over and take the team to the SB and avenge the Twin Towers. They also used the Governments weather manipulator to make it snow during the Raider game being they were a CA team so that NE would have an advantage in the snow. They also paid the refs extra money to call the "tuck" scenario BY THE BOOK as it was called and been proven dozens of times. They also secretly gave Vinateri steroids so he could pretty much win every game for NE those playoffs, including a clutch kick in the snow.

 

Now it all makes sense...thanks for clearing the picture up.

 

PS: That backup might just be the best QB to ever play, and is definitely top 5. But I guess that had nothing to do with the Patriots turn around...it was all the NFL and its 9/11 agenda

 

It wasn't to avenge the Twin Towers, it was a propaganda move to build patriotic fervor for the invasion of Afghanistan.

 

And if it wasn't a government-motivated conspiracy for jingoistic purposes, how do you explain

[Mr. WEO]

For the 12th time, I personally don't believe that there's a League conspiracy against small mkt teams--it would be too hard to keep quiet. That said, I'm simply answering questions of people denying that it would be in the League's best money-making interest for big market teams to dominate. Of course it would make more $ for the League if bigger market teams/teams with national fan bases were perennial winners. That's just common sense. The League will do relatively well no matter who is winning, it's so popular, but it will do better if certain teams in bigger cities (with richer citizens) or with already established fan bases are winners.

 

On the Packer piece, you're just plain wrong--here's the proof:

 

http://www.harrisint...06/Default.aspx

 

Third most popular team in 2014 and perennial top ten in the last 20 years or so and top 3 most of the last decade.

 

And from looking back at SB ratings history over the last 20 years or so, I'd say that it is in fact generally worth more to the League to have said major teams in the game--especially the Cowboys--vs upstart winners in smaller cities.

 

The Cowboys haven't been in the SB sicne 1996--why not? And if you actually looked at that Neilson list, you will see it absolutley does not matter who plays in the SB---the ratings are atronomical. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

 

The "league" doesn't make more money in "wealthy cities"--the owners of the teams in wealthy cities make more money--whether their team wins playoffs or not. Again, look at the Cowboys: 2 playoff wins in 18 seasons, yet they are still raking in the revenue--they are valued at 3 billion dollars! And now playoffs! Redskins--clearing 150 million a year, worth 2.4 billion--and they stink for years! Texans, 100 billion in profits, stink. Jets, 80 million in profits. They have suck.

 

Everything you are claiming about "the league" benefitting from the "big market" teams doing well is completely incorrect--and easily demonstrated as such. The NFL is the only national sport--every other is regional/local. Look at the laughable World Series ratings as proof.

[DC Tom]

The Cowboys haven't been in the SB sicne 1996--why not? And if you actually looked at that Neilson list, you will see it absolutley does not matter who plays in the SB---the ratings are atronomical. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

 

The "league" doesn't make more money in "wealthy cities"--the owners of the teams in wealthy cities make more money--whether their team wins playoffs or not. Again, look at the Cowboys: 2 playoff wins in 18 seasons, yet they are still raking in the revenue--they are valued at 3 billion dollars! And now playoffs! Redskins--clearing 150 million a year, worth 2.4 billion--and they stink for years! Texans, 100 billion in profits, stink. Jets, 80 million in profits. They have suck.

 

Everything you are claiming about "the league" benefitting from the "big market" teams doing well is completely incorrect--and easily demonstrated as such. The NFL is the only national sport--every other is regional/local. Look at the laughable World Series ratings as proof.

 

Exactly. There's no meaningful financial motive for rigging the NFL.

 

One must look for non-financial motives...say, such as those of a massive government entity looking to score a quick propaganda win riding the jingoistic fervor of the moment...

[dave mcbride]

Any discussion about the NFL being rigged isn't complete without the observation that, after September of 2001, after going 1-2 (and 5-11 the previous season) and losing their starting QB, the PATRIOTS go 10-3 with their backup QB, get the unheard-of "Tuck Rule" called in their favor, and win the Superbowl.

 

Silly me. I thought it was all karmic payback for this, one of the other worst calls in NFL history: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-top-ten/0ap2000000113870/Top-Ten-Controversial-Calls-Suger-Bear-penalty .

[Mr. WEO]

Exactly. There's no meaningful financial motive for rigging the NFL.

 

One must look for non-financial motives...say, such as those of a massive government entity looking to score a quick propaganda win riding the jingoistic fervor of the moment...

 

Then why not the Cowboys?

 

 

[Pondslider]

Then why not the Cowboys?

 

 

 

Or ya know...New York.

[bull7734]

The how and why the NFL "guides" games we will never know. Fact of the matter is certain teams get favorable call much more often than other teams. These teams sometime change depending on who knows. Say what you want about the refs and bad calls but when the league had replacement refs there were some pretty bad calls, but I felt much better because not once during that time did I ever feel the bad calls ever favored one team over the other. The calls were consistent.

[3rdand12]

So to all the people who think the NFL is rigged, even just a little, why do you still watch the games? What's the point of picking a favorite team and cheering for them when you believe the the league is rigged against your team? What's the point in hoping that the league starts rigging games in your team's favor?

My enthusiasm is winding down honestly. Fixed is a harsh word.

maneuvered might be better said.

It has become entertainment as compared to a fairly judged contest. Refs are often balancing penalties for the " greater good ".

I am slowly moving away from the NFL, again. I only watch the Bills and this might be the last year i do that.

So to make your point. Yes i think the game is getting manipulated and i am thinking of quitting it

 

95% of the posters on this thread. The Bills lost, the NFL is fixed Waa Waa.

I could never defend the officiating. It gets worse everyday with bias since the strike

 

I always figured it simply came down to the "Just Give It To 'Em" game: the refs !@#$ed up, Wilson went off on them, the league fined him, and Wilson went off on THEM, and somebody said "Fine...we're going to !@#$ with your team as much as we can."

so THATS the Curse ! Edited November 18, 2014 by 3rdand12

[enlightener]

Arrington was both turned for the ball AND had position on Wayne.

 

Nice try

stop trolling, why do you post here? go join weo and ignore the obvious while attacking us for our fantasy theories while we watch them unfold week after week, year after year. Google some stats about pi called on the pats/broncos/colts etc vs the bills and get back to us when you have something to support your theory. (which it is since we actually do get called way more than other teams) and include non calls too. DVR all the games of all teams if you need to. we wont mind not hearing fro you for a while.

[Mr. WEO]

stop trolling, why do you post here? go join weo and ignore the obvious while attacking us for our fantasy theories while we watch them unfold week after week, year after year. Google some stats about pi called on the pats/broncos/colts etc vs the bills and get back to us when you have something to support your theory. (which it is since we actually do get called way more than other teams) and include non calls too. DVR all the games of all teams if you need to. we wont mind not hearing fro you for a while.

 

Does anyone really call you "enlightener"?

[DC Tom]

Or ya know...New York.

Then why not the Cowboys?

 

Were they trying to pass the USA COWBOYS Act, or the USA GIANTS (and that other team) Act? What was the name of that law they tried so hard to sell?

[MattM]

 

 

The Cowboys haven't been in the SB sicne 1996--why not? And if you actually looked at that Neilson list, you will see it absolutley does not matter who plays in the SB---the ratings are atronomical. Why do you keep insisting otherwise?

 

The "league" doesn't make more money in "wealthy cities"--the owners of the teams in wealthy cities make more money--whether their team wins playoffs or not. Again, look at the Cowboys: 2 playoff wins in 18 seasons, yet they are still raking in the revenue--they are valued at 3 billion dollars! And now playoffs! Redskins--clearing 150 million a year, worth 2.4 billion--and they stink for years! Texans, 100 billion in profits, stink. Jets, 80 million in profits. They have suck.

 

Everything you are claiming about "the league" benefitting from the "big market" teams doing well is completely incorrect--and easily demonstrated as such. The NFL is the only national sport--every other is regional/local. Look at the laughable World Series ratings as proof.

 

Here's a link to SB ratings--folks can draw their own conclusions:

 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/02/01/will-super-bowl-xlviii-tv-viewership-set-a-new-record-poll-ratings-history/233590/

 

Looks to me like whenever the 'Boys played the ratings went way up, particularly vs the Steelers, but even against us. The Pack also seems to be a consistent draw (but why would that be, since they're not so popular, right?)

 

Just because the ratings are always high doesn't mean they aren't higher some years (and when some teams play) than others. I stand by my earlier statement that the League makes more $ (and due to revenue sharing, it is indeed the League as a whole making more $) when certain teams are popular--bigger market teams in richer demographic areas are a marketer's dream.

 

And for the millionth time, I personally don't believe the NFL fixes games for said teams. It would be waaayyy too difficult to maintain silence on, as by definition it would need to involve tons and tons of people....

[Rob's House]

I sometimes wonder if it's an understood but unspoken thing. How else do you explain Walt Coleman's continued employment.

[Bill Brasky]

Who's the most penalized team in the league?

 

 

I'll wait.....

[Pondslider]

Were they trying to pass the USA COWBOYS Act, or the USA GIANTS (and that other team) Act? What was the name of that law they tried so hard to sell?

 

They could have called it anything they wanted and with the frame of mind everyone was in at the time it wouldn't have mattered. Also the Patriot Act was signed in October and the Patriots lost two days later, so.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Pondslider

[Mr. WEO]

Here's a link to SB ratings--folks can draw their own conclusions:

 

http://tvbythenumber...history/233590/

 

Looks to me like whenever the 'Boys played the ratings went way up, particularly vs the Steelers, but even against us. The Pack also seems to be a consistent draw (but why would that be, since they're not so popular, right?)

 

Just because the ratings are always high doesn't mean they aren't higher some years (and when some teams play) than others. I stand by my earlier statement that the League makes more $ (and due to revenue sharing, it is indeed the League as a whole making more $) when certain teams are popular--bigger market teams in richer demographic areas are a marketer's dream.

 

And for the millionth time, I personally don't believe the NFL fixes games for said teams. It would be waaayyy too difficult to maintain silence on, as by definition it would need to involve tons and tons of people....

 

I posted the ratings already. Actually, the NO Indy (2 smaller market teams) had as high or higher share than any Dallas SB. You also left out the part about Dallas not having been in the SB for 18 years. Regardless, the numbers all confirm that the SB is always the top rating show on TV all year, no matter who is playing. That's al lthe networks and the the league care about.

 

Yes, you are standing by your statement that "the league makes more money when certain (big market) teams are popular", except that those teams (as you also state) are Pittsburgh and GB, both smaller market teams.

 

The NFL "makes money" for the exact opposite reason that you state. The NFL is the only league where, at the beginning of the season, most fans (most!) can reasonabley believe that thier team can make the playoffs. SO you have smaller towns like Baltimore, Pittsburgh, GB, Indy who tune in locally and nationally.

 

A "marketers dream" is having to market a product that sells itself to every market in every demographic regardless of any variable.

Edited November 18, 2014 by Mr. WEO

[Jets Hater]

Is the NFL rigged ? NO. I think , after years of bad football, it's a natural reaction ( defense mechanism ) for us to come up with reasons on why we suck so much while other team ( NE mainly ) are always on top and have their way with us year after year.

Edited November 19, 2014 by Jets Hater

[enlightener]

Is the NFL rigged ? NO. I think , after years of bad football, it's a natural reaction ( defense mechanism ) for us to come up with reasons on why we suck so much while other team ( NE mainly ) are always on top and have their way with us year after year.

none of these thoughts or theories explain why we get horrible calls in key situations. We get class that effectively are turnovers for our team. We lose games by 1 score in these games. so its not that we "suck". the refs suck and call us more than other premium quaterbacked teams. Maybe you could explain why this fact exists if you dont agree with other peoples opinions.

[CodeMonkey]

It's totally rigged. You don't think 6 feet of snow fell on the Ralph and nothing where the Jests practice is a coincidence do you?

[Jets Hater]

none of these thoughts or theories explain why we get horrible calls in key situations. We get class that effectively are turnovers for our team. We lose games by 1 score in these games. so its not that we "suck". the refs suck and call us more than other premium quaterbacked teams. Maybe you could explain why this fact exists if you dont agree with other peoples opinions.

 

I do get that the refs give us bad calls , the point is, it happens to ALL teams, not just the Bills. You could ask fans of the other 31 teams and they could point out game after game where they think they were shafted. To believe we are targeted is ludacris. We need to improve our team and stop blaming the refs or the league. Just my humble opinion.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Jets Hater

[Rob's House]

 

 

I do get that the refs give us bad calls , the point is, it happens to ALL teams, not just the Bills. You could ask fans of the other 31 teams and they could point out game after game where they think they were shafted. To believe we are targeted is ludacris. We need to improve our team and stop blaming the refs or the league. Just my humble opinion.

 

All true. But the Bills, for whatever reason, get !@#$ed more often than most teams; and even when your team improves, it's hard to win close games when the refs gift 1st downs to the opponent on key stops.

[Bill Brasky]

Its all rigged by cigarette smoking man.

[CodeMonkey]

All true. But the Bills, for whatever reason, get !@#$ed more often than most teams; and even when your team improves, it's hard to win close games when the refs gift 1st downs to the opponent on key stops.

No, they do not. It just can look that way when you are a hard core fan of a team and they lose a lot.

Edited November 20, 2014 by CodeMonkey

[Rob's House]

No, they do not. It just can look that way when you are a hard core fan of a team and they lose a lot.

 

Never underestimate the power of denial.

[fridge]

Does the NFL have enough money to do weather stuff?

[Alphadawg7]

Lets try this for the THIRD time now since you can't answer a single question or post anything of any kind of relevance to the question at hand.

 

How does the NFL profit from the Bills losing? What is it in for the NFL to conspire against them?

 

Fact: Winning teams sell more tickets.

Fact: Winning teams sell more merchandise.

Fact: Winning teams pull more ratings.

Fact: NFL profits from all of the above.

 

So, since you are completely inept at answering this question, I will ask it a second time in this post. How does the NFL profit or benefit by manipulating or rigging Bills games? And don't say to help the Pats because you and all the other tin foil theorists complain about rigging against any team in the NFL we don't get a call against or lose to.

 

In case you missed the direct question again...how does the NFL benefit from plotting against the Bills? I will bet money you don't answer this question with anything other than a blanket statement with no substance that just states "Its all about money". You don't have an answer to this question that makes any logical sense or you would have answered it already.

 

I see Tu-Toned just disappeared rather than answer direct questions asked to him by me and others like Weo. Just as I predicted...lmao

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

We had a dusting of snow in Buffalo yesterday. Is that enough to get us a sympathy Super Bowl win?

 

You just had to eff w/the Snow God's, did you know!

 

;-P ;-P

 

Your post is the one that tipped them over the edge... ;-)

[Hplarrm]

if it was all fixed wouldn't it be more interesting than it is? Any fool could write a better script than this one.

[Tu-Toned]

 

 

While I don't believe this myself, the obvious answer to that question is that it's more profitable to have either bigger market teams (Giants, Pats*, 9ers, Bears) or teams with national fanbases (Steelers, Packers, Cowboys) win than perennial small market loser franchises like Buffalo, Jacksonville or Cleveland. More fans to do the buying, often in richer demographic cities, combined with higher Nielsen ratings. Fairly simple answer.

 

As I said, I don't myself buy that--too big a conspiracy required to do that effectively. If there is crooked officiating going on, it is much more likely to be done on a smaller scale--to help gamblers in particular games or to help a particular team which is paying the refs for such privilege....

Thank God, finally someone with a little common sense. His question was really so obviously easy to

answer, that it did not warrant a response.